The Apologetics of Confrontation and Anger

[Roy]

Jesus said,

Source: Mark 13:8

For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be earthquakes in various places, and there will be famines and troubles. These are the beginnings of sorrows.

© Copyright Original Source

Those aren't current events.

[One Bad Pig]

Those aren't current events.

They're part of his preaching, which is what you specifically asked about. You didn't ask about current events.

[tabibito]

You're correct that Zechariah has in mind only one animal. The "poetic expanding repetition" that you mention is what Evans and Blomberg are referring to when they use the phrase "synonymous parallelism". As Evans points out, "Although some commentators have thought that Matthew has misunderstood the synonymous parallelism of Zech 9:9 in thinking that the text speaks of two animals, others rightly recognize that it is highly unlikely that the evangelist, who can work with Greek and probably Aramaic and Hebrew, would not recognize synonymous parallelism." And as Blomberg points out, "It is often alleged that Matthew has garbled the picture by speaking of Jesus astride two donkeys (Matt 21:5, 7), but v. 5 is a case of synonymous parallelism."

It would be hard to make a case for synonymous parallelism in verse 5 unless it was wholly unrelated to verse 7.
Matthew 21:7
ηγαγον they led την the ονον ass (singular, direct object) και and τον the πωλον foal (singular, direct object) και and επεθηκαν they laid upon επανω the top αυτων of them τα the ιματια cloaks αυτων of them και and επεκαθισεν he sat upon επανω the top αυτων of them

The final "of them" in all probability refers to the cloaks, rather than to the animals (of which there are clearly two - αυτων being genitive plural and applicable across all grammatical genders). Matthew was also, in all probability, wholly unaware that some (expletive deleted) would bob up two thousand years later and claim that he was saying "Jesus was sitting on two animals." It is the kind of sloppy grammar that occurs from time to time in all languages (that I am familiar with), and not a critical issue when a bit of nous is employed by the reader.

[Adrift]

It would be hard to make a case for synonymous parallelism in verse 5 unless it was wholly unrelated to verse 7.
Matthew 21:7
ηγαγον they led την the ονον ass (singular, direct object) και and τον the πωλον foal (singular, direct object) και and επεθηκαν they laid upon επανω the top αυτων of them τα the ιματια cloaks αυτων of them και and επεκαθισεν he sat upon επανω the top αυτων of them

The final "of them" in all probability refers to the cloaks, rather than to the animals (of which there are clearly two - αυτων being genitive plural and applicable across all grammatical genders). Matthew was also, in all probability, wholly unaware that some (expletive deleted) would bob up two thousand years later and claim that he was saying "Jesus was sitting on two animals." It is the kind of sloppy grammar that occurs from time to time in all languages (that I am familiar with), and not a critical issue when a bit of nous is employed by the reader.

Here's Craig Blomberg's email address: Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu Maybe you can set him straight.

[The Remonstrant]

I am curious about a dynamic I see all around me, here as well in the U.S. and the world at large. There is a flavor of anger and confrontation to the apologetics I see both here and elsewhere. I recognize that many atheists likewise have a confrontational approach to dealing with theists, and I wish I could apologize on behalf of all of them. There are times I think most atheists are just angry ex-theists that have not completely let go of their original worldview.

But if the goal of apologetics is to explain the faith, and convey the message of Christ risen, does a confrontational and angry apologetic EVER successfully convey the spirit of Christ? The stories of Jesus convey the impression of a man who was masterful at countering skeptics without ripping into them. Only once, that I recall, did Jesus ever "lose it," and that was when he encountered the hordes disrespecting the sacred place he saw as "my father's house." Beyond that, he apparently responded evenly and creatively to the most obnoxious of challenges, creating an atmosphere of invitation to his teaching, rather than a knee-jerk reaction against it. Even when he was to be arrested to be ultimately taken to his death, the stories convey the image of a gentle-man, even healing the ear of one of his oppressors.

Yet nowhere is there an impression that Jesus of Nazareth was a wimp. He conveys the sense of strength, self-assuredness in his faith, and concern for those who he believed would ultimately benefit from his message. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," is a powerful, masterful strategy for dealing with the situation. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to god what is god's," is similarly powerful and masterful.

Doesn't all the rage and confrontation achieve the exact opposite of what you want to achieve?

I want to be clear that I do not see this from ALL people here, or even ALL the time. But it is certainly here, and with remarkable regularity.

Thoughts...?

Anger can be, and often is, used as a manipulative tool. That is not to say that there are not appropriate times and places for having or displaying it, however. Some persons may enjoy verbally abusing (i.e. reviling) others under the guise of polemics and standing for the truth.

I believe it is pertinent to this discussion to note that Christians are not to be revilers, and are to disassociate from those who make a profession of faith who nevertheless insist on practising verbal abuse (see 1 Cor. 5:9–13).

[carpedm9587]

Anger can be, and often is, used as a manipulative tool. That is not to say that there are not appropriate times and places for having or displaying it, however. Some persons may enjoy verbally abusing (i.e. reviling) others under the guise of polemics and standing for the truth.

I believe it is pertinent to this discussion to note that Christians are not to be revilers, and are to disassociate from those who make a profession of faith who nevertheless insist on practising verbal abuse (see 1 Cor. 5:9–13).

A refreshing point of view, Remonstrant. I would hope that would apply to all of us humans, not just Christians.

[The Remonstrant]

An ad hominem fallacy is dismissing an argument based on the person of who's arguing it. If I were to say that Richard Carrier's argument for mythicism should be dismissed because he's polyamorous, then that's an ad hominem.

Saying that Carrier's argument for mythicism should be dismissed because he's completely against the consensus of NT scholars/historians today is not an ad hominem.

No, that would be employing an argumentum ad verecundiam (argument based on authority), which, depending on the case, may or may not be a fallacious form of argumentation. Also, in the example you provided, the argumentum ad populum is at play, which is essentially an appeal to a consensus in order to disregard an argument.

[The Remonstrant]

A refreshing point of view, Remonstrant. I would hope that would apply to all of us humans, not just Christians.

Thank you. I should say that your opening post is quite insightful.

One thing I would like to add is that the Scriptures are replete with examples of wicked persons and religious pretenders being strongly denounced and held accountable for their misdeeds. Evildoers who feign holiness and oppress the poor and weak are especially firmly dealt with. Verbal abuse, conversely, is used not so much with the intention of declaring the truth, but is used for the purposes of exalting oneself and psychologically and emotionally tearing others asunder. The motivation lies in gaining a sense of power and control over others. The subtlety of evil is that an evil person can pretend to be using his abusive words for sacred purposes.

[tabibito]

Here's Craig Blomberg's email address: Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu Maybe you can set him straight.

It would be possible to compare secondary sources, pitting one scholar's opinions against another's ad infinitum: for example -

Matthew’s Asses

Blomberg Craig L, Matthew in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament Beale, G K and D A Carson (eds), Grand Rapids USA, Baker Academic, 2007, pp63-65

He instructs two disciples to bring him a mother donkey and her colt from Bethphage (perhaps from a family he already knew?), telling anyone who questioned them, “The Lord needs them” (21:1-3). The “lord” (kyrios) here need mean nothing more than the animals owner, but Matthew undoubtedly sees a spiritual level of meaning as well. Jesus’ divine authority makes him the true owner of anyone’s property at any point in time. The disciples follow Jesus’ instructions successfully, and he begins to ride on the younger animal, obviously old enough to hold him as he continues up the road (21:6-7) Baldwin (1972: 166) notes that an “ass’s colt” is attested at Mari as a purebred adult. Matthew, adding to the Markan account at this point (cf. Mark 11:1-11) sees the fulfilment of prophecy in this action. He uses the full introductory form, characteristic of several of his distinctive quotations, “This happened in order to fulfil the thing having been spoken of by the prophet.
… (pp 64,65)
As for Matthew 21:7 (“They led the donkey and the colt and they placed on them garments, and he sat on them”) the nearest antecedent for the final “them” is “garments,” which need not refer to the garments on more than one animal.

Craig L. Blomberg (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary.

I find it more advantageous (and a more efficient use of time) to compare secondary sources against the scriptural record.

Maybe you were citing a different Blomberg who is also a professor at Denver Seminary?

[Adrift]

It would be possible to compare secondary sources, pitting one scholar's opinions against another's ad infinitum: for example -

Matthew’s Asses

Blomberg Craig L, Matthew in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament Beale, G K and D A Carson (eds), Grand Rapids USA, Baker Academic, 2007, pp63-65

He instructs two disciples to bring him a mother donkey and her colt from Bethphage (perhaps from a family he already knew?), telling anyone who questioned them, “The Lord needs them” (21:1-3). The “lord” (kyrios) here need mean nothing more than the animals owner, but Matthew undoubtedly sees a spiritual level of meaning as well. Jesus’ divine authority makes him the true owner of anyone’s property at any point in time. The disciples follow Jesus’ instructions successfully, and he begins to ride on the younger animal, obviously old enough to hold him as he continues up the road (21:6-7) Baldwin (1972: 166) notes that an “ass’s colt” is attested at Mari as a purebred adult. Matthew, adding to the Markan account at this point (cf. Mark 11:1-11) sees the fulfilment of prophecy in this action. He uses the full introductory form, characteristic of several of his distinctive quotations, “This happened in order to fulfil the thing having been spoken of by the prophet.
… (pp 64,65)
As for Matthew 21:7 (“They led the donkey and the colt and they placed on them garments, and he sat on them”) the nearest antecedent for the final “them” is “garments,” which need not refer to the garments on more than one animal.

Craig L. Blomberg (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary.

I find it more advantageous (and a more efficient use of time) to compare secondary sources against the scriptural record.

Maybe you were citing a different Blomberg who is also a professor at Denver Seminary?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in reference to secondary sources. I mean, I know what a secondary source is, I just don't see how bringing up secondary sources is relevant to your issues with Blomberg.

Also, you're conflating Blomberg's reading of verse 5 with his reading of verse 7. Did you read the full context of the citation I typed in post #95, or did you only decide to jump in when you read me re-citing the relevant part to lao tzu in post #105? Again, the full cite reads,

Source: Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg

It is often alleged that Matthew has garbled the picture by speaking of Jesus astride two donkeys (Matt 21:5, 7), but v. 5 is a case of synonymous parallelism, while the antecedent in the Greek for the final "them" of v. 7 is more naturally the cloaks, not the animals. That a mother would be needed along with her colt to make the younger animal willing to be ridden (and the text does not say that the animal had never previously carried any kind of pack) is only to be expected. See Gundry, Matthew, 409; Witherington, Matthew, 391. Cf. Also D. Instone-Brewer, "The Two Asses of Zechariah 9:9 in Matthew 21," TynBul 54 (2003): 87-98.

© Copyright Original Source

And to answer your question, no, there aren't two New Testament scholars named Craig Blomberg. Furthermore, your very own source repeats what Blomberg has stated in Jesus and the Gospels. The section you left out with your ellipsis goes into a survey of scholars who accept that Matthew was aware of Zechariah's synonymous parallelism,

Source: Blomberg Craig L, Matthew in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament Beale, G K and D A Carson (eds), Grand Rapids USA, Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 64-65

Matthew is often accused of grossly misreading Zechariah's synonymous parallelism and turning one animal into two, even to the extent that Jesus is portrayed as straddling the two animals. Davis and Allison (1988-1997: 3:120-21) survey the various approaches to this text, give representative proponents, and note the improbability of Matthew misreading Zechariah this drastically, but see Instone-Brewer 2003! However, this accusation drastically underestimates Matthew's understanding of the OT and of the event in Jesus' life. Matthew has regularly seen fulfillment of prophecy where correspondence between OT and NT is not exact. Stendahl (1954:200) deduces that "in breaking up the parallelism Matthew deviated from the common Messianic interpretation of the Rabbis. The only reason for such a treatment of the OT text must be that Matthew knew of a tradition, which spoke about two asses." It is historically probable that a colt that had never previously been ridden (Mark 11:2) would need its mother present to calm it on an occasion such as this. "The sight of an unridden donkey colt accompanying its mother has remained common in Palestine up to the modern times" (Gundry 1994:409; see also Lindars 1961:114). Hagner (1995:594) thinks that Zech. 9:9 itself could refer to two animals. As for Matt. 21:7 ("They led the donkey and the colt and they placed on them garments, and he sat on them"), the nearest antecedent for the final "them" is "garments," which need not refer to the garments on more than one animal.

© Copyright Original Source

[tabibito]

Ah - I failed to note that verse 5 is a simple "fulfilment quotation". Apologies.

[Mountain Man]

But if the goal of apologetics is to explain the faith, and convey the message of Christ risen, does a confrontational and angry apologetic EVER successfully convey the spirit of Christ?

Jesus, his Apostles, and the prophets of old pulled no punches when confronting those who opposed God, so why should I?

Secondly, there are different tools for different situations. When I encounter someone who is genuinely seeking answers and enlightenment then I will adopt a different tone than I do with someone who's only goal is to mock and tear down the Gospel of Christ. For the latter, shame and ridicule is appropriate in order to dishonor them in the eyes of others who might otherwise be swayed by their scoffing. I try, with varying degrees of success, to make my riposte funny and entertaining rather than just straight up abusive so that others reading are invited to laugh at my opponent and take his arguments less seriously.

JP Holding has a lengthy essay about the historical relationship of satire and Christianity:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php

[Mountain Man]

Hypocricy can be hauled out into the light, without further polarizing the situation by attacking the attacker. I simply disagree with Jesus of Nazareth on this one. The approach is self-defeating, further reducing the possibility (however slim) that the message will be heard.

It depends on who the message is for. Notice that Jesus wasn't speaking for the benefit of the pharisees but for the benefit of those observing the debate. The pharisees' only goal in those situations was to shame and silence Jesus, so he was doing nothing more than turning the tables on them. Notice in other instances when Jesus was confronted with a humble and sincere inquirer that he would answer them in kind.

There's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach in apologetics.

[carpedm9587]

Jesus, his Apostles, and the prophets of old pulled no punches when confronting those who opposed God, so why should I?

Secondly, there are different tools for different situations. When I encounter someone who is genuinely seeking answers and enlightenment then I will adopt a different tone than I do with someone who's only goal is to mock and tear down the Gospel of Christ. For the latter, shame and ridicule is appropriate in order to dishonor them in the eyes of others who might otherwise be swayed by their scoffing. I try, with varying degrees of success, to make my riposte funny and entertaining rather than just straight up abusive so that others reading are invited to laugh at my opponent and take his arguments less seriously.

JP Holding has a lengthy essay about the historical relationship of satire and Christianity:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php

MM, you might recall that I am not a fan of JP Holding. I have seen his style, and I find him reprehensible. I'll take a pass on reading his essay.

Personally, I find there is never anything to be gained by ridiculing and insulting others. I wish I had lived this philosophy all my life, but I cannot say I have, or that I even live it perfectly today. But I continue to try.

I do have to say I find it odd when people who claim allegiance to the Christian faith defend the practice, but not surprising. Ultimately, we all bring ourselves to our belief systems. So if we are prone to insulting people, we'll be prone to insult them in the name of faith. If we are prone to gentleness, we will find gentle ways to deal with people in the contexts of our faith.

The apple does not tend to fall far from the tree, as they say. While that may not be true about the faith itself (this apple fell quite a distance from the tree), I have found it tends to be true for our affective selves.

[Mountain Man]

MM, you might recall that I am not a fan of JP Holding. I have seen his style, and I find him reprehensible.

Speaking of the ad hominem fallacy...

It would seem that even you are not above publicly shaming those you disagree with even as you decry the practice.

Personally, I find there is never anything to be gained by ridiculing and insulting others. I wish I had lived this philosophy all my life, but I cannot say I have, or that I even live it perfectly today. But I continue to try.

I do have to say I find it odd when people who claim allegiance to the Christian faith defend the practice, but not surprising. Ultimately, we all bring ourselves to our belief systems. So if we are prone to insulting people, we'll be prone to insult them in the name of faith. If we are prone to gentleness, we will find gentle ways to deal with people in the contexts of our faith.

Or if you're like me, you will use whichever approach is most appropriate for the situation.